Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

BHARAT GLASS TUBE LTD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

2016 (7) TMI 220 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Restoration of appeal which was dismissed for want of pre-deposit - Mischief in generating 'C' Form - interstate sale - revenue proposed to deny the benefit of concessional rate duty. - Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sold the goods to the registered dealer and was therefore, entitled to claim concessional rate of duty. Whatever be the action of such purchasing dealer, the petitioner cannot be denied the concessional rate of duty. - Held that:- the petitioner having .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

PLICATION NO. 6079 of 2016 - Dated:- 10-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : UCHIT N SHETH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP, NOTICE SERVED BY DS ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in following background: 2. The petitioner is manufacturer dealer of glass items. According to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not have availed the concessional rate duty. The Assessing Authority therefore raised total demand of ₹ 40,85,268/- including tax demand of ₹ 15,07,480/- and interest of ₹ 3,16,568/- and penalty of ₹ 22,16,220/- . 3. The order of the assessment was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 06.01.2016 directed the petitioner to deposit the entire tax plus interest amount of ₹ 40,85,268/- by way of predepo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e petitioner on merits. By impugned order dated 14.03.2016, the Tribunal minutely examined the issues arising in the petitioner's appeal against assessment order and passed the following order: (3) Since, initially interim directions were given to the appellant to make payment of ₹ 4,00,000/- as against the directions issued by the Learned First Appellate Authority to make payment of ₹ 18,94,000/- , we direct the appellant to make balance payment of ₹ 14,94,000/- within one .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version